Sky rail for Pakenham Cranbourne line outlined

 
Topic moved from News by bevans on 13 Jan 2016 16:51
  62440 Chief Commissioner

We can have elevated roads through urban areas and look down on the locals from a bus but not from a train, I gather

Sponsored advertisement

  slowcoach Junior Train Controller

Does anyone know how 4 mainline tracks could work through Oakleigh ?

Convert the Northern platform (3) Into an Island, or have a platform-less 4 track running along the south of the station, with trains not stopping at the Southern platform (1)
Nightfire
Fortunately the space under Warrigal Rd bridge is enough for 4 tracks to run under. Oakleigh is a premium station with a busy bus interchange meaning many people use this station, so 4 platforms would be the best bet.
- Because Caufield has track directions Up Down Up Down, it would be best to retain Platform 3 (Burlington St end) and re-label it to Platform 4.
- Demolish the Island platform and build a new island platform closer to New Platform 4.
- Then Build a new Side Platform on Haughton St end hopefully wide enough to cater for passengers, toilet facilities, shelter and seats, that will be named Platform 1.
- The new island platform will have a new customer service hub, small cafe and toilet facilities too
- Junctions West and East of Oakleigh Station would have to be removed or remodelled so trains can either transfer to multiple platforms in the event of a disruption.

Metro Express trains and occasionally VLine trains can use Platforms 3 and 4, Freight trains can roll by these platforms too.
Stopping Metro trains can use the New Platforms 1 and 2.
The overall station format will be similar to Hawksburn, Toorak, Armadale and Malvern.
  ARodH Chief Train Controller

Location: East Oakleigh, Vic
Does anyone know how 4 mainline tracks could work through Oakleigh ?

Convert the Northern platform (3) Into an Island, or have a platform-less 4 track running along the south of the station, with trains not stopping at the Southern platform (1)
Fortunately the space under Warrigal Rd bridge is enough for 4 tracks to run under. Oakleigh is a premium station with a busy bus interchange meaning many people use this station, so 4 platforms would be the best bet.
- Because Caufield has track directions Up Down Up Down, it would be best to retain Platform 3 (Burlington St end) and re-label it to Platform 4.
- Demolish the Island platform and build a new island platform closer to New Platform 4.
- Then Build a new Side Platform on Haughton St end hopefully wide enough to cater for passengers, toilet facilities, shelter and seats, that will be named Platform 1.
- The new island platform will have a new customer service hub, small cafe and toilet facilities too
- Junctions West and East of Oakleigh Station would have to be removed or remodelled so trains can either transfer to multiple platforms in the event of a disruption.

Metro Express trains and occasionally VLine trains can use Platforms 3 and 4, Freight trains can roll by these platforms too.
Stopping Metro trains can use the New Platforms 1 and 2.
The overall station format will be similar to Hawksburn, Toorak, Armadale and Malvern.
slowcoach
Nope, your forgetting three things, Heritage Listing as there's bound to be something with that applied to it, 'Metro' hates junctions & crossovers and 'Metro' doesn't want anything operating on 'their' track that they don't control.
  mm42 Chief Train Controller

The outcome of this announcement would have been so much better if the government had offered to compensate landholders who back onto the train line. From Google Earth, I counted 81 such residential properties. If the average compensation were $200,000 per property, this would amount to $16.2 m, which is a net saving relative to trenching the line.  Properties that have a road buffer between their property and the train line won't have the same shadowing and privacy issues. The value of $200,000 is based on responses from property valuers interviewed by The Age. Why should these property owners have to suffer such depreciation of value for the common good (ie suburban dwellers beyond Oakleigh) ?


http://www.domain.com.au/news/melbourne-sky-rail-and-railway-crossing-removal-impact-property-prices-20160219-gmwpfb/

Furthermore, why do all properties need to face a 9 m Sky Rail by the back fence ? The 9 m height is required to go over main roads, but surely a lower height of perhaps 4.5 m would be sufficient adjacent to houses. The line would then have a slight switch-back effect, rising for stations then falling, which would help with the momentum of braking before stations and acceleration after.
  TOQ-1 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Power Trainger
The 9m height is so that more light gets under the bridges themselves to make useful parkland underneath.
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: Gheringhap Loop Autonomous Zone
The outcome of this announcement would have been so much better if the government had offered to compensate landholders who back onto the train line. From Google Earth, I counted 81 such residential properties. If the average compensation were $200,000 per property, this would amount to $16.2 m, which is a net saving relative to trenching the line.  Properties that have a road buffer between their property and the train line won't have the same shadowing and privacy issues. The value of $200,000 is based on responses from property valuers interviewed by The Age. Why should these property owners have to suffer such depreciation of value for the common good (ie suburban dwellers beyond Oakleigh) ?

http://www.domain.com.au/news/melbourne-sky-rail-and-railway-crossing-removal-impact-property-prices-20160219-gmwpfb/
mm42
I'm not seeing why that bloke is going to have his house drop in value when it faces onto a linear park with a bike path that goes straight to the two nearest train stations. Plenty of people would pay good money for that!

He's already noted that him and his neighbours are considering selling their properties to a developer... Gee, I wonder who benefits if property prices in the area are 'estimated' to fall by 20-25%.
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
He's already noted that him and his neighbours are considering selling their properties to a developer... Gee, I wonder who benefits if property prices in the area are 'estimated' to fall by 20-25%.
LancedDendrite
We're suffering terribly because of the proposed elevated railway line - but on the other hand if our property becomes more valuable and we can sell it to a developer...

Sounds like the adjacent property owners can't decide if its good or bad.
  historian Deputy Commissioner

The outcome of this announcement would have been so much better if the government had offered to compensate landholders who back onto the train line. From Google Earth, I counted 81 such residential properties. If the average compensation were $200,000 per property, this would amount to $16.2 m, which is a net saving relative to trenching the line.  Properties that have a road buffer between their property and the train line won't have the same shadowing and privacy issues. The value of $200,000 is based on responses from property valuers interviewed by The Age. Why should these property owners have to suffer such depreciation of value for the common good (ie suburban dwellers beyond Oakleigh) ?


http://www.domain.com.au/news/melbourne-sky-rail-and-railway-crossing-removal-impact-property-prices-20160219-gmwpfb/
mm42

Unlikely as this would create a precedent for all future (and past) infrastructure works. (As a side note - the property owners also won't be compensated when their neighbour sells to a developer who puts up a four story block of flats.) In any case, why stop at the properties immediately adjacent to the line - what about the properties next to those ones?

It would be almost impossible to judge fairly in advance. Note the range of estimates of loss of value in the article. Hocking Stewart notes that properties abutting the line already are 10% below average prices in the suburb, and estimate this will increase to 15%. At a median house price of $1.27 million, this would mean a loss to the owner of $63,500, not $200,000.
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
As a side note - the property owners also won't be compensated when their neighbour sells to a developer who puts up a four story block of flats.
historian
Overshadow is becoming a big problem in Melbourne; look at that area adjacent to South Yarra station where developers have been going ballistic. If you bought an apartment built five/ten years ago with nice views of the city and a nice northerly aspect, who compensates you when the factory next door gets knocked over and replaced with a multi-storey block obstructing your views and overshadowing your balcony so that you never see the sun in winter?

Chances are you are completely out of luck and you'll have to wear the subsequent loss of value/amenity.
  ARodH Chief Train Controller

Location: East Oakleigh, Vic
He's already noted that him and his neighbours are considering selling their properties to a developer... Gee, I wonder who benefits if property prices in the area are 'estimated' to fall by 20-25%.
LancedDendrite

The developer whose mates are after the same blocks to build some multi-story blocks of flats.
That's something that shocked me during a recent travel on Neerim Rd; the number of flats that've popped up, some on what used to be a house block, but a few on what used to be light industrial. I've been noticing it happen in some retail centres too, usually with insufficient parking for the project - one of the reasons why I suspect some railway station car parks never completely clear overnight.
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
That's something that shocked me during a recent travel on Neerim Rd; the number of flats that've popped up, some on what used to be a house block, but a few on what used to be light industrial. I've been noticing it happen in some retail centres too, usually with insufficient parking for the project - one of the reasons why I suspect some railway station car parks never completely clear overnight.
ARodH
Developments with no car-parking at all are becoming much more common - around Chapel St Prahran in particular there are several apartment blocks that have been constructed with no on-site parking for residents whatsoever. I think the intention is for those people to exclusively rely on public transport or cycling but the reality is that people are permanently parking their cars in nearby residential streets. Good in theory, not workable in practice.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
These Suburbs In question, are they not the places where Overseas buyers snap up without even Inspecting the property.
  woodford Chief Commissioner

That's something that shocked me during a recent travel on Neerim Rd; the number of flats that've popped up, some on what used to be a house block, but a few on what used to be light industrial. I've been noticing it happen in some retail centres too, usually with insufficient parking for the project - one of the reasons why I suspect some railway station car parks never completely clear overnight.
Developments with no car-parking at all are becoming much more common - around Chapel St Prahran in particular there are several apartment blocks that have been constructed with no on-site parking for residents whatsoever. I think the intention is for those people to exclusively rely on public transport or cycling but the reality is that people are permanently parking their cars in nearby residential streets. Good in theory, not workable in practice.
don_dunstan
Strange as it may seem, there is an increasing number of people now who never get a driving licence. A girl I knew quite some time ago was one of these, lived in Portland, traveled entirely by bike or public transport. She owned here own house by the time she was 25. Road transport eat money like there is no tomorrow.

One can get an electric trike now weighing under 40kg with a range of over 100 kilometres for around $5000 dollars.

Here is an example, I have one almost the same only mine has a headrest and front guards. Its quite comfortable, the trike is designed for a rider of 150kgs. I believe these are availible from Greenspeed on special order., I fitted the electrical assist my self and use a bigger battery (a 51V 26AH lithium iron phosphate weighing only 5kg).

http://queenslandrecumbent.com/products/

Gives me excelent mobility and costs only around $10  a week to run, a far cry from the $100 a week for the troopy.

Lindsay
  Flygon Train Controller

Location: Australia
One can get an electric trike now weighing under 40kg with a range of over 100 kilometres for around $5000 dollars.

Here is an example, I have one almost the same only mine has a headrest and front guards. Its quite comfortable, the trike is designed for a rider of 150kgs. I believe these are availible from Greenspeed on special order., I fitted the electrical assist my self and use a bigger battery (a 51V 26AH lithium iron phosphate weighing only 5kg).

http://queenslandrecumbent.com/products/

Gives me excelent mobility and costs only around $10  a week to run, a far cry from the $100 a week for the troopy.

Lindsay
woodford

Oh man, I loved those things as a kid. Used to race in the RACV Energy Breakthrough! Though, you'd want a Fiberglass shell when racing these things, lest you roll it!

The concern I'd have, is that they have trouble fitting on the train, and the possibility of being stuck on a non-bike path and having to negotiate road traffic in such a low riding vehicle.

An upright tricycle, though, something like this, with electrical assist, would be fantastic for carrying the shopping, and probably be less suicidal when having to use the public roads. Smile

It is a bit of a shame that these sort of vehicles can't be easily parked at a station, or taken on the train, either way. They're simply far too big.
  woodford Chief Commissioner

One can get an electric trike now weighing under 40kg with a range of over 100 kilometres for around $5000 dollars.

Here is an example, I have one almost the same only mine has a headrest and front guards. Its quite comfortable, the trike is designed for a rider of 150kgs. I believe these are availible from Greenspeed on special order., I fitted the electrical assist my self and use a bigger battery (a 51V 26AH lithium iron phosphate weighing only 5kg).

http://queenslandrecumbent.com/products/

Gives me excelent mobility and costs only around $10  a week to run, a far cry from the $100 a week for the troopy.

Lindsay

Oh man, I loved those things as a kid. Used to race in the RACV Energy Breakthrough! Though, you'd want a Fiberglass shell when racing these things, lest you roll it!

The concern I'd have, is that they have trouble fitting on the train, and the possibility of being stuck on a non-bike path and having to negotiate road traffic in such a low riding vehicle.

An upright tricycle, though, something like this, with electrical assist, would be fantastic for carrying the shopping, and probably be less suicidal when having to use the public roads. Smile

It is a bit of a shame that these sort of vehicles can't be easily parked at a station, or taken on the train, either way. They're simply far too big.
Flygon

The magnum is one of the few recumbents with an adjustable height seat at its maximum the seat height would around 35cm or so. One has top be slightly carefull as its quite easy to reach good speeds even on flats and there C of G is fairly high.
Rememeber the magnum was designed specificly for unfit people, so it was intentionaly made with a fairly high seat.

It also easily folds up.............
http://www.greenspeed.com.au/C.Fold.800.jpg


woodford
  woodford Chief Commissioner

Oops and error in my previous post, the seat height on the Magnum goes up to 43 cm (17 inches) and down to around 30cm

The guy that builds these Ian Sims (CEO of Greenspeed), states he has taken the magnum on trains in both Melbourne and in Denmark with no issues

woodford
  tom9876543 Train Controller

Skyrail should be built between Caulfield and Oakleigh.
The property owners next to the rail line.... quit your whinging. The government should tell them bad luck, property values may go up instead of downwards.
When Skyrail is built, it MUST allow room for future expansion to 4 rail tracks. If they build 2 single track bridges, make sure the horizontal gap between them is a minimum of 7.32m (2*3.66m).
  Flygon Train Controller

Location: Australia
It also easily folds up.............
http://www.greenspeed.com.au/C.Fold.800.jpg
woodford

That... would explain a hell of a lot!

Racing recumbents weren't exactly designed to fold up. Heheh. But, yeah, point taken. Most of my exposure was for racing use, not general use. It would figure that a standard vehicle would have more of a vertical profile. Less legs in your vision to boot. Very Happy

I am extremely concerned about the lack of 4 track provision. It'd save us a lot of money building both viaducts to handle 4 tracks now, rather than putting it off to later. And, alas, the future SG Freight link will just muddy the waters further, unless we plan ahead with Dual Gauge sleepers/slab track.
  woodford Chief Commissioner


I am extremely concerned about the lack of 4 track provision. It'd save us a lot of money building both viaducts to handle 4 tracks now, rather than putting it off to later. And, alas, the future SG Freight link will just muddy the waters further, unless we plan ahead with Dual Gauge sleepers/slab track.
Flygon
The problem is the more complex a project is the more difficult it is to get up, the reason is a complex project will not be understood and will be attacked as a threat. On the other hand a simple project that solves an obvoius problem will be understood by more people and it is far more likely to be seen as an improvement.

A sucsession of simple projects is far more likely to proceed as more people (including politicians) will understand what is happenning. Remember most politicians and journalists are technicaly incompetent and to get a successfull technical idea through to them it has to be dead simple and be spoon fed to them.

woodford
  TheMeddlingMonk Deputy Commissioner

Location: The Time Vortex near Melbourne, Australia
Went to the LXRA Community Consultation session in Clayton this morning. Had a good chat to a couple of engineers and a landscape architect regarding the elevated rail solution. They had several large printouts of the new alignment plans, both a detailed top view showing the new station area, community areas, etc. and a side view showing the variation in elevation. Some interesting and surprising points came out of the discussions:

  • The new station will at the highest point of the elevated rail section in order to provide a lead-in/out slope for metro trains
  • The new alignment at Clayton is on the northern side of the existing one
  • No third or fourth track is currently planned, but it appears that the space should be readily available to the south of the new alignment and would require a new viaduct/bridge
  • The maximum grade is 2% to accommodate freight
  • The entire Dandenong corridor (Flinders St out to Pakenham and Cranbourne) is going to have its signalling overhauled
  • The power system is going to be upgraded
  • There will be no IRJs* in the new track sections - they're moving away from track circuits and instead using the new signalling + axle counters at the remaining level crossings
  • There will be no sleepers or ballast on the elevated rail sections - the track will be affixed to the structure (should alleviate buckling)
  • The overhead supports are self-tensioning (the design printouts also seemed to suggest that were somewhat closer together than the existing ones) so as to remove the problem of cables sagging due summer
  • Noise and visual barriers will be different for each section (apparently this is currently being modelled), based on the context (for example, in the Clayton section there are roads, carparks or open grass areas along most of the area that will be elevated), however the derailment barriers will be consistent and provide a baseline level of visual+noise blocking anyway
  • The platforms will initially be built for the standard 6-carriage trains, with allowance made for future extension to cater for 9-carriage trains (the reasoning given for not building this now is that it will be years before the Melbourne Metro tunnel becomes operational with 9-carriage trains and so there is little point building these platform extensions when they won't be used for years)
  • Clayton Station is the only station that is actually heritage-listed in the affected part of the corridor (all the others have heritage overlays) - the buildings will be preserved but probably moved (the location and new purpose yet to be decided)

* For those who don't know what an IRJ is, it's an insulated rail joint that separates one track circuit from another.

Outside the consultation area there were quite a few representatives of the anti-skyrail group, providing handouts and asking people to sign a petition against the elevated rail solution. I had a chat to one of these individuals after going into the LXRA session - he felt that the project had been politicised and that the primary reason for the skyrail was that it could be built quicker (he also believed it was comparable in cost and had higher ongoing maintenance). It seemed he had not been inside to see the design printouts, however, as he was unaware of the placement of the new alignment and seemed to think that somehow the elevated rail solution would prevent additional tracks being built without property acquisition (as opposed to lowering it at level crossings). He conceded that he had only heard the property acquisition point in general and seemed to take onboard the suggestion that that would only be necessary for the Oakleigh-Caulfield part of the corridor.

Another common complaint (from the feedback notes people had written inside and the anti-skyrail handout) was the suggestion that it would be an eyesore. I would argue that a giant hole in the ground isn't really going to be an improvement and that a new station and elevated rail at Noble Park could not possibly make it look any worse (if anyone's been there, then on the city-side of Noble Park you'll see plenty of graffiti on the shops backing onto the rail corridor and a rather dilapidated substation).
  woodford Chief Commissioner

Many thanks for the report, it IS MOST apreciated!.

The level crossing authority does have some info on there website, not detailed plans as yet but an animation video with a good deal of information in showing what they are doing and it has some very good before and after shots of each level crossing.

The reason for two separate elevated track is so they can be constructed WITHOUT disturbing the existing tracks.

A number problems some of these anti groups suffer from is they often are very short of accurate facts, and it is not unknown for them to exagerate there claims. I know the anti north south pipe line group were living in fairy land, they had no idea.

woodford
  62440 Chief Commissioner

  • The overhead supports are self-tensioning (the design printouts also seemed to suggest that were somewhat closer together than the existing ones) so as to remove the problem of cables sagging due summer
This has been standard for 30 years for all new works, with contact and catenary weight loaded to keep tension constant. Pre WW1 sections have the contact weight tensioned but not the catenary. There is virtually no unregulated OHW left.
  mejhammers1 Chief Commissioner

Skyrail should be built between Caulfield and Oakleigh.
The property owners next to the rail line.... quit your whinging. The government should tell them bad luck, property values may go up instead of downwards.
When Skyrail is built, it MUST allow room for future expansion to 4 rail tracks. If they build 2 single track bridges, make sure the horizontal gap between them is a minimum of 7.32m (2*3.66m).
tom9876543
Sorry Tom, but I understand why they are whinging. Because it is a Political Exercise. (Yet Again). Again it is treating one electorate with contempt and another with kid gloves. Nowhere on the Frankston Corridor is this being put forward. Why? Because that corridor holds a number of Marginal seats, which could break or return Governments. The Dandenong Corridor does not, pure and simple. In effect they are saying that the people of Oakleigh and Clayton are less important than the people of Bentleigh, McKinnon and Aspendale. A good idea carried out for the wrong reasons!!!


Michael
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
It will be Interesting what the Government comes up for the level crossings along the sand belt Suburbs.

Between Mordialloc Creek and Kananook Creek there are 11 level crossing with 9 of them crossing over between Station Street and Nepean Highway.

If a new Station Street bridge was built over the Paterson River at Carrum, Station Street could be used for the baulk of North South local traffic.
East West traffic would seam to be limited (due to the presence of the Bay)

Eel Race Road Is planed for elimination, If Station Street Aspendale (near Mordialloc Creek) was put on the list and say about 3 other grade separated crossover places between Station Street crossing and Eel Race Road.

With the railway largely staying at It's present level (just the streets rearranged around It)
  Edith Chief Commissioner

Location: Line 1 from Porte de Vincennes bound for Bastille station
I did have a look at the Lands Department contour maps for the line and I can see that to reduce the undulations a lot, you need to elevate some parts and lower others.  So it will only have a few sections of "sky".  Overall, it will be a much flatter line, making life for the freighters a little easier.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.